Growth: give something some time, a little investment, a lot of attention, and it happens naturally.
The sport of motocross is growing in the professional ranks. For years the sport relied heavily on the "big four" factory teams pitting out of one semi for its infusion of wealth, followed by very few satellite teams out of service trucks, those in turn followed by the mire of panel vans and pick up truck privateer riders.
Name one rider who pitted out of a pick up truck or box van this past Supercross season who also made a main event.
I'm sure that question has a few names that meet the agenda, but for the most part the main event riders are on a team with a Semi Trailer Truck, a full time mechanic, and a salary. Even some of the riders who don't make every main event have a Semi they call "home" during the races.
How can you become motivated to put your bodily well being on the line when you aren't looking at working construction for the rest of your life as your only alternative? Other than competition's sake itself, why would Davi Millsaps, Josh Hill, Andrew Short, or any other factory rider put it all on the line week in and week out when they are already making enough money to retire? As a privateer these days, what would make you really hungry and want to work towards that factory ride if your current satellite ride offers a decent salary and bikes?
Growth is great, but lack of incentives is not. Pay all riders an equal base salary of let's say 50 thousand. Then pay them purely on their finish position.
If you make every main event, it averages to: 50 thousand a year bonus to your salary.
Every main top ten or better: 200 thousand bonus.
Every main top five or better: 500 thousand bonus.
Every main on the box: 1 million bonus.
Win the championship: 1 million dollar bonus on top of what you have already earned for you finishes.
Let's put the hunger back into the sport.
What's hunger?
Young local pro's ride hungry. They want that 150% payback, and if you get in their way, say hello to a dirt sandwich and endless post moto ridicule. Local pro's ride hungry because they are hungry, literally.
Couple million in the bank....why push it the little extra? Second is good enough to keep the large salary. Just keep telling people your working, you don't know what it will take to bridge the gap, but your searching, you feel closer than ever, and that your giving it your all.
Not everyone can be a champion, but anyone can be a challenger.
Mohammad Alli was a champion. Joe Frazer was a challenger.
Jeremy McGrath was a champion. Jeff Emig was a challenger. David Vullieman was a challenger. Doug Henry was a challenger. Mike Larocco was a challenger (who wasn't a challenger over M.C.'s era?).
Challengers are the people who refuse to accept second place. Instead, second is the first loser, and they set out to change that. Chad Reed is a challenger.
A champion is proven, year in a year out, to get a title. Week in a week out they are the safe bet.
Stephen Everts is a champion.
A challenger is unproven. Week in and week out they are a profitable bet, but never a long shot.
Sebastion Tortelli is a challenger.
There is nothing wrong with being a challenger. In fact, it is often the most cheered rider who fits the challenger profile: the challenger encompasses the good ole' American underdog, the David (vs GOLATH), the reason races are interesting, the reason our sport continues to exist.
Imagine the 2003 outdoor season without Kevin Windham. Pretty bland, huh?
Challengers tie into the roots of America itself. The small, scrappy, loose union against the large, organized, mechanized England.
The privateer embodies a challenger to the greatest measure. The local rider, with nothing but two bikes on loan from a dealership, some local help from a shop doing his motors and suspension, and a "whole lot of heart" taking on the big name riders and the factory teams.
The privateer always has time for the local kids, and is completely approachable at the track. He is what makes young kids dream big, and he is what gives young kids something to cheer for, because they know him personally, they think he is the fastest rider in the world, and they appreciate what he offers them.
Instead of a thirty minute wait in line for a poster with an autograph, the privateer gives the local kids something much more valuable.
His time.
The privateer sells more of his sponsor's products locally than any big name pro, because he is willing to talk about the product in the flesh, and locals can see him using their product in person, on their home track. To the privateer, if the product sucks, he doesn't use it. Let's get real, you wont see a local pro sucking back monster's between motos.
I cry private tears, because the privateer is lost.
No longer are riders (in main events-or at least the night show) homeless, except for their box van.
No longer are practice bikes race bikes.
The privateer,
No longer.
[Ed: Not intended to disgruntle any riders, if you are a privateer scrapping for food and gas money, feel proud, this article is for you. Yes there exists the old school privateer, but the sport is growing to some extent, and as such what classifies as privateer these days is a far cry from what it was not so many years back. Maybe the AMA should really look into the issue and give the true privateer his due.
Also, this tied in on another issue, that of top riders salary. Do you think riders of today should deserve 2 million a year if they never win a moto (not saying the don't)? The whole goal in paying a salary like that from a manufacturer's point of view is to win. Instead of front loading the contract with large payout, just put that same total money in a performance based contract. If you hire a guy like Timmy Ferry because you expect him to get podiums, even if you don't expect him to win each week, pay him well if he gets on the podium.]
Monday, July 7, 2008
The Gossip - My Private Tears
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Very nice blog. I just found it. I will spend some time looking through your archives.
I think you are looking at high salaries as a primary cause of the seemingly low level competition in recent racing seasons, but I don't think that is the problem. The salaries themselves are the result of the teams competing over a fairly small pool of talent. The same phenomena exists in all the major sports, with the top performers ultimately being the ones who get the highest salaries. Yet the rookie classes in all sports frequently produce far more millionaire duds than superstars.
I do think bigger purses and a broader spread would help. It would certainly help riders with the desire and work ethic, but perhaps not the right early support or a longer maturity curve, have a better shot at reaching their potential.
I like your contrast between Champions and Challengers. And I do think there is a mismatch problem between what teams are looking for — future champions — and the selection criteria they use to find and hire them.
Malcolm Gladwell recently did a short speech on this mismatch problem, in promotion of hi$ upcoming book. The truth is none of the factories know how to define what sets a Carmichael, Stewart, or Everts, apart. They don't know what a champion looks like before he becomes a champion. So they use a narrow set of criteria and hope for the best.
One issue may well be the age at which the money starts to roll in. Very few professional sports make millionaires of children. The NBA does and we see what a mess that has become. No matter how fast a person is, at 16 or 17 they are still children. The military may take an 18-year-old and turn him into a man, but professional MX does not. Especially if he has spent most of his life being home schooled, living in a big motorhome, and traveling from city to city to race in endless amateur championships.
Some will do well with this background, others won't. But if you do not have this background in today's environment, you are far less likely to ever get your shot at the big time. We will never know how many potential champions abandoned the sport because they did not have it together at 16 or 17 years old.
Yet having this background offers little, if any, clue to a rider's ultimate success. Comparatively few champions have arisen from this system, with far more burnouts and duds.
I do not think that arbitrarily reducing salaries will be a benefit. Nor do I think it's particularly practical. Raising the age limit for pro racing may help, as may increased purses and spreads. But in the end there needs to be a way to identify the characteristics that make champion, and then an infrastructure that supports the growth of those characteristics.
This is not a task for the factories, to which racing is a marketing tool and riders are a commodity. It is a task for the rules makers and governing bodies. And, in some sense, for us — the interested observers who love the sport and want to see it healthy for years to come.
That is why racing should be run and managed by third parties who have a stake in its long-term success and legacy, not by factories or factory organs governed by next quarter's sales.
I certainly don't have the answers. Success as a professional racer is an enormously difficult and complex task. But I do know that a singular focus on how fast someone is at 14 or 15 years old has not proven a very reliable scorecard.
I hope the new governing body for MX understands the scope of this problem, and I think they do, at least in part. I also hope discussions like the one you've started here might result in some small but helpful insights into a very difficult problem.
thanks for the great input.
As usual, the blog is food for thought, but I do strongly feel increased salaries are leading some to try less hard.
Post a Comment